Our decisions are published as part of our commitment to being open and transparent. The decisions are anonymised so residents’ names are not used, but landlords are named. The decisions date from December 2020, and are published 3 months after the final decision date. In some cases, we may decide not to publish a decision if it is not in the resident’s or landlord’s interest or the resident’s anonymity may be compromised. You can read more in our guidance on decisions.
The complaint is about: The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that the communal door lock had been changed to one with a latch, which had led to residents latching the door open. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.
REPORT COMPLAINT 202233915 Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council 28 November 2024 Our approach The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the […]
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. The associated complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s: Reports of damp, mould and related outstanding repairs. Complaint. This report has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.
The complaint is about the landlord’s: Response to the resident’s concerns that a neighbour had erected a patio and fence without permission. Handling of the complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s: Response to the resident’s reports that the property was cold and does not retain heat. Complaint handling.
The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to: The resident’s reports of noise nuisance from her neighbour (“N”). The resident’s request for a move. In 2022, the resident had made a number of reports about noise from her neighbour. She made an application to the Environmental Health team (EHO) at the local council, the landlord installed NME and offered the resident a Noise App. On 30 August 2022, the resident made a complaint that the landlord had not dealt with her reports of noise satisfactorily. She had not slept and was unable to watch TV. She was unwell. On 4 October 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows: It referred to a visit at the property of 27 September 2022 and telephone call to the resident on 4 October 2022. It stated that the complaint was about noise. It had also discussed adaptations and a move. It apologised for “any inconvenience” caused by the issues complained of. It was unable to act upon the reported noise issues without any evidence. The installed noise equipment did not pick up any noise that was not at a level to be considered a nuisance. It asked her to continue to log the incidents and continue with her application for the Environmental Health team at the council. It did not have an obligation to inform her neighbour of instalment of noise monitoring equipment. It noted the adaptations application was in process as advised by her Occupational Therapist. It clarified that the resident had, with the help of support, submitted her application with medical evidence to support a move. On 3 February 2023, Citizen’s Advice wrote to the landlord to state the resident had been “struggling” with ASB from N. It had affected her ability to sleep. She was a cancer patient who had undergone surgery and this had hindered her recovery. It cited reports of intimidation and that N turned off the music when anyone approaching his property. “Multiple people” were aware of the noise. The landlord acknowledged there was noise. In October 2022, the landlord had agreed to let her stay the night in its guest bungalow because her own property did not have electricity at the time. On 10 February 2023, the landlord escalated the complaint and offered an “involved customer” to take part in the complaints process in order to review how it had handled the complaint and to provide an independent view on the proposed outcome. On 3 March 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows: It referred to its telephone calls with the resident on 1 and 2 March 2023. It confirmed it had not shared her personal details with N. It regretted that she felt that her reports had not been dealt with appropriately, and apologised for making her feel ignored. While it was correct that the noise recording equipment did not collect any evidence of noise nuisance, it did not consider any further solutions or ideas at the time, so did not feel that her original complaint was handled well. It was agreed that 2 Housing Officers (not previously involved in her case) would visit both her and N to try and identify if possible noise transference may be causing a higher than acceptable level of noise. It would arrange this for 6 March 2023. It may not solve the issues but would allow the landlord to fully investigate the problem. The Area Housing Manager would “lead“ on this and contact her when arranged. It would then contact her within 7 calendar days to discuss the findings and next steps. It would also discuss internally different ways of approaching noise nuisance which would ultimately be used to create a new Noise Policy. In conclusion, it felt that it could have investigated her noise complaint in more detail and that this should have been identified in the Stage 1 complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the: Resident’s reports of concerns with the communal cleaning. Resident’s reports of repairs to the communal entrance door.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s request for repairs to the wet room in the property. The associated complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of water ingress. Associated formal complaint.